Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses that a pending confirmation code may be returned and directs the agent to ask the user and call odoo_confirm, which is not captured by annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the critical confirmation workflow. Appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the core operation and the confirmation edge case. With an output schema present, return values need not be explained further. It does not mention permission requirements beyond confirmation or batch update behavior, but annotations and schema cover most other gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and all three parameters (ids, model, values) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Actualiza registros existentes' (updates existing records). It distinguishes the tool from creation or deletion implicitly by specifying existing records, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like odoo_create or odoo_unlink.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a clear usage condition: if the account has write confirmation enabled, a pending code is returned, and the agent should ask the user and use odoo_confirm. It lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer odoo_write over other write-related siblings, but the confirmation workflow is well covered.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.